HISTORY AND CHRONOLOGY.
“The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and
Calneh, in the land of Shinar.”--GEN. X. 10.
The establishment of a Cushite kingdom in Lower Babylonia dates probably
from (at least) the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth century before our era.
Greek traditions’ assigned to the city of Babylon an antiquity nearly as
remote; and the native historian, Berosus, spoke of a Chaldaean dynasty
as bearing rule anterior to B.C. 2250. Unfortunately the works of this
great authority have been lost; and even the general outline of his
chronological scheme, whereof some writers have left us an account, is to
a certain extent imperfect; so that, in order to obtain a definite
chronology for the early times, we are forced to have recourse, in some
degree, to conjecture. Berosus declared that six dynasties had reigned
in Chaldaea since the great flood of Xisuthrus, or Noah. To the first,
which consisted of 86 kings, he allowed the extravagant period of 34,080
years. Evechous, the founder of the dynasty, had enjoyed the royal
dignity for 2400 years, and Chomasbelus, his son and successor, had
reigned 300 years longer than his father. The other 84 monarchs had
filled up the remaining space of 28,980 years--their reigns thus
averaging 345 years apiece. It is clear that these numbers are
unhistoric; and though it would be easy to reduce them within the limits
of credibility by arbitrary suppositions--as for instance, that the years
of the narrative represent months or days--yet it may reasonably be
doubted whether we should in this way be doing any service to the cause
of historic truth. The names Evechous and Chomasbelus seem mythic rather
than real; they represent personages in the Babylonian Pantheon, and can
scarcely have been borne by men. It is likely that the entire series of
names partook of the same character, and that, if we possessed them,
their bearing would be found to be, not historic, but mythological. We
may parallel this dynasty of Berosus, where he reckons king’s reigns by
the cyclical periods of _sosses_ and _ners,_ with Manetho’s dynasties of
Gods and Demigods in Egypt, where the sum of the years is nearly as
great.
It is necessary, then, to discard as unhistorical the names and numbers
assigned to his first dynasty by Berosus, and to retain from this part of
his scheme nothing but the fact which he lays down of an ancient
Chaldaean dynasty having ruled in Babylonia, prior to a conquest, which
led to the establishment of a second dynasty, termed by him Median.
The scheme of Berosus then, setting aside his numbers for the first
period, is--according to the best extant authorities, as follows:--
Dynasty I. of (?) Chaldaean kings. (?) years.
II. of 8 Median “ 234 (?) ”
III. “ 11 “ “ 48 (?) ”
IV. “ 49 Chaldaean “ 458 ”
V. “ 9 Arabian “ 245 ”
VI. “ 45 (?) “ 526 ”
Reign of Pul (?)
Dynasty VII. of (?) (?) kings (?)
“ VIII. “ 6 Chaldaean “ 87 ”
[Illustration: PAGE 98]
It will be observed that this table contains certain defects and
weaknesses, which greatly impair its value, and prevent us from
constructing upon it, without further aid, an exact scheme of chronology.
Not only does a doubt attach to one or two of the numbers--to the years,
i.e., of the second and third dynasty--but in two cases we have no
numbers at all set down for us, and must supply them from conjecture, or
from extraneous sources, before we can make the scheme available.
Fortunately in the more important case, that of the seventh dynasty, the
number of years can be exactly supplied without any difficulty. The Canon
of Ptolemy covers, in fact, the whole interval between the reign of Pul
and the close of the Babylonian Empire, giving for the period of the
seventh dynasty 13 reigns in 122 years, and for that of the eighth 5
reigns in 87 years. The length of the reign of Pul can, however, only be
supplied from conjecture. As it is not an unreasonable supposition that
he may have reigned 28 years, and as this number harmonizes well with the
chronological notices of the monuments, we shall venture to assume it,
and thus complete the scheme which the fragments of Berosus imperfect.
[Illustration: PAGE 99]
This scheme, in which there is nothing conjectural except the length of
the reign of Pul, receives very remarkable confirmation from the Assyrian
monuments. These inform us, first, that there was a conquest of Babylon
by a Susianian monarch 1635 yers before the capture of Susa by
Asshurbanipal, the son of Esarhaddon; and, secondly, that there was a
second conquest by an Assyrian monarch 600 years before the occupation of
Babylon by Esarhaddon’s father, Sennacherib. Now Sennacherib’s
occupation of Babylon was in B.C. 702; and 600 years before this brings
us to B.C. 1302, within a year of the date which the scheme assigns to
the accession of the seventh dynasty. Susa was taken by Asshur-bani-pal
probably in B.C. 651; and 1635 years before this is B.C. 2286, or the
exact year marked in the scheme for the accession of the second (Median)
dynasty. This double coincidence can scarcely be accidental; and we may
conclude, therefore, that we have in the above table at any rate a near
approach to the scheme of Babylonian chronology as received among both
the Babylonians and Assyrians in the seventh century before our era.
Whether the chronology is wholly trustworthy is another question. The
evidence both of the classical writers and of the monuments is to the
effect that exact chronology was a subject to which the Babylonians and
Assyrians paid great attention. The “Canon of Ptolemy,” which contained
an exact Babylonian computation of time from B.C. 747 to B.C. 331, is
generally allowed to be a most authentic document, and one on which we
may place complete reliance. The “Assyrian Canon,” which gives the years
of the Assyrian monarchs from B.C. 911 to B.C. 660, appears to be equally
trustworthy. How much further exact notation went back, it is impossible
to say. All that we know is, first, that the later Assyrian monarchs
believed they had means of fixing the exact date of events in their own
history and in that of Babylon up to a time distant from their own as
much as sixteen or seventeen hundred years; and secondly, that the
chronology which result from their statements and those of Berosus is
moderate, probably, and in harmony with all the knowledge which we obtain
of the East from other sources. It is proposed therefore, in the present
volumes, to accept the general scheme of Berosus as, in all probability,
not seriously in error; and to arrange the Chaldaean, Assyrian, and
Babylonian history on the framework which it furnishes.
Chaldaean history may therefore be regarded as opening upon us at a time
anterior, at any rate by a century or two, to B.C. 2286. It was then
that Nimrod, the son or descendant of Cush, set up a kingdom in Lower
Mesopotamia, which attracted the attention of surrounding nations. The
people, whom he led, came probably by sea; at any rate, their earliest
settlements were on the coast; and Ur or Hur, on the right bank of the
Euphrates, at a very short distance from its embouchure, was the
primitive capital. The “mighty hunter” rapidly spread his dominion
inland, subduing or expelling the various tribes by which the country was
previously occupied. His kingdom extended northwards, at least as far as
Babylon,--which (as well as Erech or Huruk, Accad, and Calneh) was first
founded by this monarch. Further historical details of his reign are
wanting; but the strength of his character and the greatness of his
achievements are remarkably indicated by a variety of testimonies, which
place him among the foremost men of the Old World, and guarantee him a
never-ending remembrance. At least as early as the time of Moses his
name had passed into a proverb. He was known as “the mighty hunter
before the Lord”--an expression which had probably a double meaning,
implying at once skill and bravery in the pursuit and destruction of wild
beasts, and also a genius for war and success in his aggressions upon
men. In his own nation he seems to have been deified, and to have
continued down to the latest times one of the leading objects of worship,
under the title of Bilu-Nipru or Bel-Nimrod, which may be translated “the
god of the chase,” or “the great hunter.”
One of his capitals, Calneh, which was regarded as his special city,
appears afterwards to have been known by his name (probably as being the
chief seat of his worship in the early times); and this name it still
retains, slightly corrupted. In the modern Niffer we may recognize the
Talmudical Nopher, and the Assyrian Nipur which is Nipru, with a mere
metathesis of the two final letters. The fame of Nimrod has always been
rife in the country of his domination. Arab writers record a number of
remarkable traditions, in which he plays a conspicuous part; and there is
little doubt but that it is in honor of his apotheosis that the
constellation Orion bears in Arabian astronomy the title of El Jabbar, or
“the giant.” Even at the present day his name lives in the mouth of the
people inhabiting Chaldaea and the adjacent regions, whose memory of
ancient heroes is almost confined to three--Nimrod, Solomon, and
Alexander. Wherever a mound of ashes is to be seen in Babylonia or the
adjoining countries, the local traditions attach to it the name of
Niinrud or Nimrod; and the most striking ruins now existing in the
Mesopotamian valley, whether in its upper or its lower portion, are made
in this way monuments of his glory.
Of the immediate successors of Nimrod we have no account that even the
most lenient criticism can view as historical. It appears that his
conquest was followed rapidly by a Semitic emigration from the
country--an emigration which took a northerly direction. The Assyrians
withdrew from Babylonia, which they still always regarded as their
parent land, and, occupying the upper or non-alluvial portion of the
Mesopotamian plain, commenced the building of great cities in a tract
upon the middle Tigris. The Phoenicians removed from the shores of the
Persian Gulf, and, journeying towards the northwest, formed settlements
upon the coast of Canaan, where they became a rich and prosperous
people. The family of Abraham, and probably other Aramaean families,
ascended the Euphrates, withdrawing from a yoke which was oppressive, or
at any rate unpleasant. Abundant room was thus made for the Cushite
immigrants, who rapidly established their preponderance over the whole
of the southern region. As war ceased to be the necessary daily
occupation of the newcomers, civilization and the arts of life began to
appear. The reign of the “Hunter” was followed, after no long time, by
that of the “Builder.” A monumental king, whose name is read doubtfully
as Urkham or Urukh, belongs almost certainly to this early dynasty, and
may be placed next in succession, though at what interval we cannot say,
to Nimrod. He is beyond question the earliest Chaldaean monarch of whom
any remains have been obtained in the country. Not only are his bricks
found in a lower position than any others, at the very foundations of
buildings, but they are of a rude and coarse make, and the inscriptions
upon them contrast most remarkably, in the simplicity of the style of
writing used and in their general archaic type, with the elaborate and
often complicated symbols of the later monarchs. The style of Urukh’s
buildings is also primitive and simple in the extreme; his bricks are of
many sizes, and ill fitted together; he belongs to a time when even the
baking of bricks seems to have been comparatively rare, for sometimes he
employs only the sun-dried material; and he is altogether unacquainted
with the use of lime mortar, for which his substitute is moist mud, or
else bitumen. There can be little doubt that he stands at the head of
the present series of monumental kings, another of whom probably reigned
as early as B.C. 2286. As he was succeeded by a son, whose reign seems
to have been of the average length, we must place his accession at least
as early as B.C. 2326. Possibly it may have fallen a century earlier.
It is as a builder of gigantic works that Urukh is chiefly known to us.
The basement platforms of his temples are of an enormous size; and though
they cannot seriously be compared with the Egyptian pyramids, yet
indicate the employment for many years of a vast amount of human labor in
a very unproductive sort of industry. The Bowariyeh mound at Warka is
200 feet square, and about 100 feet high. Its cubic contents, as
originally built, can have been little, if at all, under 3,000,000 feet;
and above 30,000,000 of bricks must have been used in its construction.
Constructions of a similar character, and not very different in their
dimensions, are proved by the bricks composing them to have been raised
by the same monarch at Ur, Calneh or Nipur, and Larancha or Larsa, which
is perhaps Ellasar. It is evident, from the size and number of these
works, that their erector had the command of a vast amount of “naked
human strength,” and did not scruple to employ that strength in
constructions from which no material benefit was derivable, but which
were probably designed chiefly to extend his own fame and perpetuate his
glory. We may gather from this that he was either an oppressor of his
people, like some of the Pyramid Kings in Egypt, or else a conqueror, who
thus employed the numerous captives carried off in his expeditions.
Perhaps the latter is the more probable supposition; for the builders of
the great fabrics in Babylonia and Chaldaea do not seem to have left
behind them any character of oppressiveness, such as attaches commonly to
those monarchs who have ground down their own people by servile labor.
The great buildings of Urukh appear to have been all designed for
temples. They are carefully placed with their angles facing the cardinal
points, and are dedicated to the Sun, the Moon, to Belus (Bel-Nimrod), or
to Beltis. The temple at Mugheir was built in honor of the Moon-god, Sin
or Hiuki, who was the tutelary deity of the city. The Warka temple was
dedicated to Beltis. At Calneh or Nipur, Urukh erected two temples, one
to Beltis and one to Belus. At Larsa or Ellasar the object of his
worship was the Sun-god, San or Sansi. He would thus seem to have been
no special devotee of a single god, but to have divided out his favors
very fairly among the chief personages of the Pantheon.
It has been observed that both the inscriptions of this king, and his
architecture, are of a rude and primitive type. Still in neither case do
we seem to be brought to the earliest dawn of civilization or of art.
The writing of Urukh has passed out of the first or hieroglyphic stage,
and entered the second or transition one, when pictures are no longer
attempted, but the lines or wedges follow roughly the old outline of the
objects in his architecture, again, though there is much that is rude
and simple, there is also a good deal which indicates knowledge and
experience. The use of the buttress is understood; and the buttress is
varied according to the material. The importance of sloping the walls of
buildings inwards to resist interior pressure is thoroughly recognized.
Drains are introduced to carry off moisture, which must otherwise have
been very destructive to buildings composed mainly, or entirely, of crude
brick. It is evident that the builders whom the king employs, though
they do not possess much genius, have still such a knowledge of the most
important principles of their art as is only obtained gradually by a good
deal of practice. Indeed, the very fact of the continued existence of
their works at the distance of forty centuries is sufficient evidence
that they possessed a considerable amount of architectural skill and
knowledge. We are further, perhaps, justified in concluding, from the
careful emplacement of Urukh’s temples, that the science of astronomy was
already cultivated in his reign, and was regarded as having a certain
connection with religion. We have seen that the early worship of the
Chaldaeans was to a great extent astral--a fact which naturally made the
heavenly bodies special objects of attention. If the series of
observations which Callisthenes sent to Aristotle, dating from B.C.
2234, was in reality a record, and not a mere calculation backwards of
the dates at which certain celestial phenomena must have taken place,
astronomical studies must have been pretty well advanced at a period not
long subsequent to Urukh.
Nor must we omit to notice, if we would estimate aright the condition of
Chaldaean art under this king, the indications furnished by his
signet-cylinder. So far as we can judge from the representation, which
is all that we possess of this relic, the drawing on the cylinder was as
good and the engraving as well executed as any work of the kind, either
of the Assyrian or of the later Babylonian period. Apart from the
inscription this work of art has nothing about it that is rude or
primitive. The elaboration of the dresses and headgear of the figures
has been already noticed. It is also worthy of remark, that the
principal figure sits on an ornamental throne or chair, of particularly
tasteful construction, two legs of which appear to have been modelled
after those of the bull or ox. We may conclude, without much danger of
mistake, that in the time of the monarch who owned this seal, dresses of
delicate fabric and elaborate pattern, and furniture of a recherche and
elegant shape, were in use among the people over whom he exercised
dominion.
The chief capital city of Urukh appears to have been Ur. He calls
himself “King of Ur and Kingi Accad;” and it is at Ur that he raises his
principal buildings. Ur, too, has furnished the great bulk of his
inscriptions. Babylon was not yet a place of much importance, though it
was probably built by Nimrod. The second city of the Empire was Huruk or
Erech: other places of importance were Larsa (Ellasar?) and Nipur or
Calneh.
Urukh appears to have been succeeded in the kingdom by a son, whose name
it is proposed to read as Elgi or Ilgi. Of this prince our knowledge is
somewhat scanty. Bricks bearing his name have been found at Ur (Mugheir)
and at Tel Eid, near Erech, or Warka; and his signet-cylinder has been
recovered, and is now in the British Museum. We learn from inscriptions
of Nabonidus that he completed some of the buildings at Ur, which had
been left unfinished by his father; while his own bricks inform us that
he built or repaired two of the principal temples at Erech. On his
signet-cylinder he takes the title of “King of Ur.”
After the death of Ilgi, Chaldaean history is for a time a blank. It
would seem, however, that while the Cushites were establishing themselves
in the alluvial plain towards the mouths of the two great rivers, there
was growing up a rival power, Turanian, or Ario-Turanian, in the
neighboring tract at the foot of the Zagros mountain-chain. One of the
most ancient, perhaps the most ancient, of all the Asiatic cities was
Susa, the Elamitic capital, which formed the centre of a nationality that
endured from the twenty-third century B.C. to the time of Darius
Hystaspis (B.C. 520) when it sank finally under the Persians. A king of
Elam, whose court was held at Susa, led, in the year B.C. 2286 (or a
little earlier), an expedition against the cities of Chaldaea, succeeded
in carrying all before him, ravaged the country, took the towns,
plundered the temples, and bore off into his own country, as the most
striking evidence of victory, the images of the deities which the
Babylonians especially reverenced. This king’s name, which was
Kudur-Nakhunta, is thought to be the exact equivalent of one which has a
world-wide celebrity, to wit, Zoroaster. Now, according to Polyhistor
(who here certainly repeats Berosus), Zoroaster was the first of those
eight Median kings who composed the second dynasty in Chaldaea, and
occupied the throne from about B. C. 2286 to 2052. The Medes are
represented by him as capturing Babylon at this time, and imposing
themselves as rulers upon the country. Eight kings reigned in space of
234 (or 224) years, after which we hear no more of Medes, the
sovereignty being (as it would seem) recovered by the natives. The
coincidences of the conquest the date, the foreign sovereignty and the
name Zoroaster, tend to identify the Median dynasty of Berosus with a
period of Susianian supremacy, which the monuments show to have been
established it Chaldaea at a date not long subsequent to the reigns of
Urukh and Ilgi, and to have lasted for a considerable period.
There are five monarchs known to us who may be assigned to this dynasty.
The first is the Kudur-Nakhunta above named, who conquered Babylonia and
established his influence there, but continued to hold his court at Susa,
governing his conquest probably by means of a viceroy or tributary king.
Next to him, at no great interval, may be placed Kudur-Lagamer, the
Chedor-laomer of Scripture, who held a similar position to
Kudur-Nakhunta, reigning himself in Elam, while his vassals, Amraphel,
Arioch, and Tidal (or Turgal) held the governments respectfully of
Shinar (or Upper Babylonia), Ellasar (Lower Babylonia or Chaldaea), and
the Goim or the nomadic races. Possessing thus an authority over the
whole of the alluvial plain, and being able to collect together a
formidable army, Kudur-Lagamer resolved on a expedition up the
Euphrates, with the object of extending his dominion to the
Mediterranean Sea and to the borders of Egypt. At first his endeavors
were successful. Together with his confederate kings, he marched as far
as Palestine, where he was opposed by the native princes, Bera, king of
Sodom, Birsha, king of Gomorrah, Shinab, king of Admah, Shemeber, king
of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela or Zoar. A great battle was fought
between the two confederated armies in the vale of Siddim towards the
lower end of the Dead Sea. The invaders were victorious; and for twelve
years Bera and his allies were content to own themselves subjects of the
Elamitic king, whom they “served” for that period. In the thirteenth
year they rebelled: a general rising of the western nations seems to
have taken place; and in order to maintain his conquest it was necessary
for the conqueror to make a fresh effort. Once more the four eastern
kings entered Syria, and, after various successes against minor powers,
engaged a second time in the valley of Siddim with their old
antagonists, whom they defeated with great slaughter; after which they
plundered the chief cities belonging to them. It was on this occasion
that Lot, the nephew of Abraham, was taken prisoner. Laden with booty
of various kinds, and encumbered with a number of captives, male and
female, the conquering army set out upon its march home, and had reached
the neighborhood of Damascus, when it was attacked and defeated by
Abraham, who with a small band ventured under cover of night to fall
upon the retreating host, which he routed and pursued to some distance.
The actual slaughter can scarcely have been great; but the prisoners and
the booty taken had to be surrendered; the prestige of victory was lost;
and the result appears to have been that the Mesopotamian monarch
relinquished his projects, and, contenting himself with the fame
acquired by such distant expeditions, made no further attempt to carry
his empire beyond the Euphrates.
The other three kings who may be assigned to the Elamitic dynasty are a
father, son, and grandson, whose names appear upon the native monuments
of Chaldaea in a position which is thought to imply that they were
posterior to the kings Urukh and Ilgi, but of greater antiquity than any
other monarchs who have left memorials in the country. Their names are
read as Sinti-shil-khak, Kudur-Mabuk, and Arid-Sin. Of Sinti-shil khak
nothing is known beyond the name. Kudur-Mabuk is said in the
inscriptions of his son to have “enlarged the dominions of the city of
Ur;” and on his own bricks he bears the title of Apda Martu, which
probably means “Conqueror of the West.” We may presume therefore that
he was a warlike prince, like Kudur-Nakhunta and Kudur-Lagamer; and
that, like the latter of these two kings, he made war in the direction
of Syria, though he may not have carried his arms so far as his great
predecessor. He and his son both held their court at Ur, and, though of
foreign origin, maintained the Chaldaean religion unchanged, making
additions to the ancient temples, and worshipping the Chaldaean gods
under the old titles.
The circumstances which brought the Elamitic dynasty to a close, and
restored the Chaldaean throne to a line of native princes, and
unrecorded by any historian; nor have the monuments hitherto thrown any
light upon them. If we may trust the numbers of the Armenian Eusebius,
the dynasty which succeeded, ab. B.C. 2052, to the Susianian (or
Median), though it counted eleven kings, bore rule for the short space
of forty-eight years only. This would seem to imply either a state of
great internal disturbance, or a time during which viceroys, removable
at pleasure and often removed, governed the country under some foreign
suzerain. In either case, the third dynasty of Berosus may be said to
mark a transition period between the time of foreign subjection and that
of the recovery by the native Chaldaeans of complete independence.
To the fourth Berosian dynasty, which held the throne for 458 years,
from about B. C. 2004 to B. C. 1546, the monuments enable us to assign
some eight or ten monarchs, whose inscriptions are characterized by a
general resemblance, and by a character intermediate between the extreme
rudeness of the more ancient and the comparative elegance and neatness
of the later legends. Of these kings one of the earliest was a certain
Ismidagon, the date of whose reign we are able to fix with a near
approach to exactness. Sennacherib, in a rock inscription at Bavian,
relates that in his tenth year (which was B. C. 692) he recovered from
Babylon certain images of the gods which had been carried thither
by Merodach-iddin-akhi, King of Babylon, after his defeat of
Tiglath-Pileser, King of Assyria, 418 years previously. And the same
Tiglath-Pileser relates that he rebuilt a temple in Assyria, which had
been taken down 60 years before, after it had lasted 641 years from its
foundation by Shamas-Vul, sun of Ismi-dagon. It results from these
numbers that Ismi-dagon was king as early as B.C. 1850, or, probably a
little earlier.
The monuments furnish little information concerning Ismidagon beyond the
evidence which they afford of the extension of this king’s dominion into
the upper part of the Mesopotamian valley, and especially into the
country known in later times as Assyria. The fact that Shamas-Vul, the
son of Ismi-dagon, built a temple at Kileh-Sherghat, implies necessarily
that the Chaldaans at this time bore sway in the upper region.
Shamas-Vul appears to have been, not the eldest, but the second son of
the monarch, and must be viewed as ruling over Assyria in the capacity
of viceroy, either for his father or his brother. Such evidence as we
possess of the condition of Assyria about this period seems to show that
it was weak and insignificant, administered ordinarily by Babylonian
satraps or governors, whose office was one of no great rank or dignity.
In Chaldaea, Ismi-dagon was succeeded by a son, whose name is read,
somewhat doubtfully, as Gunguna or Gurguna. This prince is known to us
especially as the builder of the great public cemeteries which now form
the most conspicuous objects among the ruins of Mugheir, and the
construction of which is so remarkable. Ismi-dagon and his son must
have occupied the Chaldaean throne during most of the latter half of the
nineteenth century before our era-from about B.C. 1850 to B.C. 1800.
Hitherto there has been no great difficulty in determining the order of
the monumental kings, from the position of their bricks in the principal
Chaldaean ruins and the general character of their inscriptions. But
the relative place occupied in the series by the later monarchs is
rendered very doubtful by their records being scattered and unconnected,
while their styles of inscription vary but slightly. It is most
unfortunate that no writer has left us a list corresponding in
Babylonian history with that which Manetho put on record for Egyptian;
since we are thus compelled to arrange our names in an order which rests
on little more than conjecture.
The monumental king who is thought to have approached the nearest to
Gurguna is Naram-Sin, of whom a record has been discovered at Babylon,
and who is mentioned in a late inscription as the builder, in
conjunction with his father, of a temple at the city of Agana. His date
is probably about B.C. 1750. The seat of his court may be conjectured
to have been Babylon, which had by this time risen into metropolitan
conse quence. It is evident that, as time went on, the tendency was to
remove the seat of government and empire to a greater distance from the
sea. The early monarchs reign at Ur (Mugheir), and leave no traces of
themselves further north than Niffer. Sin-Shada holds his court at
Erech (Warka), twenty-five miles above Mugheir; while Naram-Sin is
connected with the still more northern city of Babylon. We shall find a
similar tendency in Assyria, as it rose into power. In both cases we
may regard the fact as indicative of a gradual spread of empire towards
the north, and of the advance of civilization and settled government in
that direction.
A king, who disputes the palm of antiquity with Naram-Sin, has left
various records at Erech or Warka, which appears to have been his
capital city. It is proposed to call him Sin-Shada. He constructed, or
rather re-built, the upper terrace of the Bowariyeh ruin, or great
temple, which Urukh raised at Warka to Beltis; and his bricks are found
in the doorway of another large ruin (the _Wuswas_) at the same place;
it is believed, however, that in this latter building they are not in
situ, but have been transferred from some earlier edifice. His reign
fell probably in the latter part of the 18th, century B. C.
Several monarchs of the Sin series--i.e. monarchs into whose names the
word Sin, the name of the Moon-god, enters as an element--now present
themselves. The most important of them has been called Zur-Sin. This
king erected some buildings at Mugheir; but he is best known as the
founder of the very curious town whose ruins bear at the present day the
name of Abu-Shahrein. A description of the principal buildings at this
site has been already given. They exhibit certain improvements on the
architecture of the earlier times, and appear to have been very richly
ornamented, at least in parts. At the same time they contain among
their debris remarkable proofs of the small advance which had as yet
been made in some of the simplest arts. Flint knives and other
implements, stone hatchets, chisels, and nails, are abundant in the
ruins; and though the use of metal is not unknown, it seems to have been
comparatively rare. When a metal is found, it is either gold or bronze,
no trace of iron (except in ornaments of the person) appearing in any of
the Chaldaean remains. Zur-Sin, Rim-Sin, and three or four other
monarchs of the Sin series, whose names are imperfect or uncertain, may
be assigned to the period included between B.C. 1700 and B.C. 1546.
Another monarch, and the only other monumental name that we can assign to
Berosus’s fourth dynasty, is a certain Nur-Vul, who appears by the
Chaldaean sale-tablets to have been the immediate predecessor of Rim-Sin,
the last king of the _Sin_ series. Nur-Vul has left no buildings or
inscriptions; and we seem to see in the absence of all important
monuments at this time a period of depression, such as commonly in the
history of nations precedes and prepares the way for a new dynasty or a
conquest.
The remaining monumental kings belong almost certainly to the fifth, or
Arabian, dynasty of Berosus, to which he assigns the period of 245 years
--from about B.C. 1546 to B.C. 1300. That the list comprises as many as
fifteen names, whereas Berosus speaks of nine Arabian kings only, need
not surprise us, since it is not improbable that Berosus may have omitted
kings who reigned for less than a year. To arrange the fifteen monarchs
in chronological order is, unfortunately, impossible. Only three of them
have left monuments. The names of the others are found on linguistic and
other tablets, in a connection which rarely enables us to determine
anything with respect to their relative priority or posteriority. We
can, however, definitely place seven names, two at the beginning and five
toward the end of the series, thus leaving only eight whose position in
the list is undetermined.
The series commences with a great king, named Khammurabi, who was
probably the founder of the dynasty, the “Arab” chief who, taking
advantage of the weakness and depression of Chaldaea under the latter
monarchs of the fourth dynasty, by intrigue or conquest established his
dominion over the country, and left the crown to his descendants.
Khammurabi is especially remarkable as having been the first (so far as
appears) of the Babylonian monarchs to conceive the notion of carrying
out a system of artificial irrigation in his dominions, by means of a
canal derived from one of the great rivers. The _Nahar-Khammu-rabi_
(“River of Khabbu-rabi “),whereof he boasts in one of his inscriptions,
was no doubt, as he states, “a blessing to the Babylonians”--it “changed
desert plains into well-watered fields; it spread around fertility an
abundance”--it brought a whole district, previously barren, into
cultivation, and it set an example, which the best of the later monarchs
followed, of a mode whereby the productiveness of the country might be
increased to an almost inconceivable extent.
Khammu-rabi was also distinguished as a builder. He repaired the great
temple of the Sun at Senkereh and constructed for himself a new palace at
Kalwadha, or Chilmad, not far from the modern Baghdad. His inscriptions
have been found at Babylon, at Zerghul, and at Tel-Sifr; and it is
thought probable that he made Babylon his ordinary place of residence.
His reign probably covered the space from about B.C. 1546 to B.C. 1520,
when he left his crown to his son, Samsu-iluna. Of this monarch our
notices are exceedingly scanty. We know him only from the Tel-Sifr clay
tablets, several of which are dated by the years of his reign. He held
the crown probably from about B.C. 1520 to B.C. 1500.
About sixty or seventy years after this we come upon a group of names,
belonging almost certainly to this same dynasty, which possess a peculiar
interest, inasmuch as they serve to connect the closing period of the
First, or Chaldaean, with the opening portion of the Second, or Assyrian,
Monarchy. A succession of five Babylonian monarchs is mentioned on an
Assyrian tablet, the object of which is to record the synchronous history
of the two countries. These monarchs are contemporary with independent
Assyrian princes, and have relations toward them which are sometimes
peaceful, sometimes warlike. Kara-in-das, the first of the five, is on
terms of friendship with Asshur-bel-nisi-su, king of Assyria, and
concludes with him a treaty of alliance. This treaty is renewed between
his successor, Purna-puriyas, and Buzur-Asshur, the successor of
Asshur-bel-nisi-su on the throne of Assyria. Not long afterwards a third
Assyrian monarch, Asshur-upallit, obtains the crown, and Purna-puriyas
not only continues on the old terms of amity with him, but draws the ties
which unite the two royal families closer by marrying Asshur-upallit’s
daughter. The issue of this marriage is a prince named Kara-khar-das,
who on the death of Purna-puriyas ascends the throne of Babylon. But
now a revolution occurs. A certain Nazi-bugas rises in revolt, puts
Kara-khar-das to death, and succeeds in making himself king. Hereupon
Asshur-upallit takes up arms, invades Babylonia, defeats and kills
Nazi-bugas, and places upon the throne a brother of the murdered
Kara-khar-das, a younger son of Purna-puriyas, by name Kurri-galzu,
or Durri-galzu. These events may be assigned with much probability
to the period between B.C. 1440 and B.C. 1380.
Of the five consecutive monarchs presented to our notice in this
interesting document, two are known to us by their own inscriptions.
Memorials of Purna-puriyas and Kurri-galzu, very similar in their general
character, have been found in various parts of Chaldala. Those of
Purna-puriyas come from Senkereh the ancient Larsa, and consist of bricks,
showing that he repaired the great temple of the Sun at that city which
was originally built by Urukh. Kurri-galzu’s memorials comprise bricks
from Mugheir (Ur) and Akkerkuf, together with his signet-seal, which was
found at Baghdad in the year 1800. [PLATE XXI., Fig. 4.] It also appears
by an inscription of Nabonidus that he repaired a temple at the city of
Agana, and left an inscription there.
But the chief fame of Kurri-galzu arises from his having been the founder
of an important city. The remarkable remains at Akkerkuf, of which an
account has been given in a former chapter, mark the site of a town of
his erection. It is conjectured with some reason that this place is the
Dur-Kurri-galzu of the later Assyrian inscriptions--a place of so much
consequence in the time of Sargon that he calls it “the key of the
country.”
The remaining monarchs, who are on strong grounds of probability,
etymological and other, assigned to this dynasty are Saga-raktiyas, the
founder of a Temple of the male and female Sun at Sippara, Ammidi-kaga,
Simbar-sikhu, Kharbisikhu, Ulam-puriyas, Nazi-urdas, Mili-sikhu, and
Kara-kharbi. Nothing is known at present of the position which any of
these monarchs held in the dynasty, or of their relationship to the kings
previously mentioned, or to each other. Most of them are known to us
simply from their occurrence in a biliugual list of kings, together with
Khammu-rabi, Kurri-galzu, and Purna-puriyas. The list in question
appears not to be chronological.
Modern research has thus supplied us with memorials (or at any rate with
the names) of some thirty kings, who ruled in the country properly termed
Chaldaea at a very remote date. Their antiquity is evidenced by the
character of their buildings and of their inscriptions, which are
unmistakably rude and archaic. It is further indicated by the fact that
they are the builders of certainly the most ancient edifices whereof the
country contains any trace. The probable connection of two of them with
the only king known previously from good authority to have reigned in the
country during the primitive ages confirms the conclusion drawn from the
appearance of the remains themselves; which is further strengthened by
the monumental dates assigned to two of them, which place them
respectively in the twenty-third and the nineteenth century before our
era. That the kings belong to one series, and (speaking broadly) to one
time, is evidenced by the similarity of the titles which they use, by
their uninterrupted worship of the same gods, and by the general
resemblance of the language and mode of writing which they employ.
That the time to which they belong is anterior to the rise of Assyria
to greatness appears from the synchronism of the later monarchs of the
Chaldaean with the earliest of the Assyrian list, as well as from the
fact that the names borne by the Babylonian kings after Assyria became
the leading power in the country are not only different, but of a
different type. If it be objected that the number of thirty kings is
insufficient for the space over which they have in our scheme been
spread, we may answer that it has never been, supposed by any one that
the twenty-nine or thirty kings, of whom distinct mention has been made
in the foregoing account, are a complete list of all the Chaldaean
sovereigns. On the contrary, it is plain that they are a very incomplete
list, like that which Herodotus gives of the kings of Egypt, or that
which the later Romans possessed of their early monarchs. The monuments
themselves present indications of several other names of kings, belonging
evidently to the same series, which are too obscure or too illegible for
transliteration. And there may, of course, have been many others of whom
no traces remain, or of whom none have been as yet found. On the other
hand, it may be observed, that the number of the early Chaldaean kings
reported by Polyhistor is preposterous. If sixty-eight consecutive
monarchs held the Chaldaean throne between B.C. 2286 and B.C. 1546, they
must have reigned on an average, less than eleven years apiece. Nay, if
forty-nine ruled between B.C. 2004 and B.C. 1546, covering a space of
little more than four centuries and a half--which is what Berosus is made
to assert--these later monarchs cannot even have reigned so long as ten
years each, an average which may be pronounced quite impossible in a
settled monarchy such as the Chaldaean. The probability would seem to be
that Berosus has been misreported, his numbers having suffered corruption
during their passage through so many hands, and being in this instance
quite untrustworthy. We may conjecture that the actual number of reigns
which he intended to allow his fourth dynasty was nineteen, or at the
utmost twenty-nine, the former of which numbers would give the common
average of twenty-four years, while the latter would produce the less
usual but still possible one of sixteen years.
The monarchy which we have had under review is one, no doubt, rather
curious from its antiquity than illustrious from its great names, or
admirable for the extent of its dominions. Less ancient than the
Egyptian, it claims the advantage of priority over every empire or
kingdom which has grown up upon the soil of Asia. The Arian, Turanian,
and even the Semitic tribes, appear to have been in the nomadic
condition, when the Cushite settlers in Lower Babylonia betook themselves
to agriculture, erected temples, built cities, and established a strong
and settled government. The leaven which was to spread by degrees
through the Asiatic peoples was first deposited on the shores of the
Persian Gulf at the mouth of the Great River; and hence civilization,
science, letters, art, extended themselves northward, and eastward, and
westward. Assyria, Media, Semitic Babylonia, Persia, as they derived
from Chaldaea the character of their writing, so were they indebted to
the same country for their general notions of government and
administration, for their architecture, their decorative art, and still
more for their science and literature. Each people no doubt modified in
some measure the boon received, adding more or less of its own to the
common inheritance. But Chaldaea stands forth as the great parent and
original inventress of Asiatic civilization, without any rival that can
reasonably dispute her claims. The great men of the Empire are Nimrod,
Urukh, and Che-dor-laomer. Nimrod, the founder, has the testimony of
Scripture that he was “a mighty one in the earth;” “a mighty hunter;”
the establisher of a “kingdom,” when kingdoms had scarcely begun to be
known; the builder of four great and famous cities, “Babel, and Erech,
and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar,” or Mesopotamia. To him
belong the merit of selecting a site peculiarly fitted for the
development of a great power in the early ages of the world, and of
binding men together into a community which events proved to possess
within it the elements of prosperity and permanence. Whether he had,
indeed, the rebellious and apostate character which numerous traditions,
Jewish, Arabian, and Armenian, assign to him; whether he was in reality
concerned in the building of the tower related in the eleventh chapter of
the Book of Genesis, we have no means of positively determining. The
language of Scripture with regard to Nimrod is laudatory rather than the
contrary; and it would seem to have been from a misapprehension of the
_nexus_ of the Mosaic narrative that the traditions above mentioned
originated. Nimrod, “the mighty hunter _before the Lord_,” had not in
the days of Moses that ill reputation which attached to him in later
ages, when he was regarded as the great Titan or Giant, who made war
upon the gods, and who was at once the builder of the tower, and the
persecutor who forced Abraham to quit his original country. It is at
least doubtful whether we ought to allow any weight at all to the
additions and embellishments with which later writers, so much wiser
than Moses, have overlaid the simplicity of his narrative.
Urukh, whose fame may possibly have reached the Romans, was the great
Chaldaean architect. To him belongs, apparently, the conception of the
Babylonian temple, with its rectangular base, carefully placed so as to
present its angles to the four cardinal points, its receding stages, its
buttresses, its drains, its sloped walls, its external staircases for
ascent, and its ornamental shrine crowning the whole. At any rate, if he
was not the first to conceive and erect such structures, he set the
example of building them on such a scale and with such solidity as to
secure their long continuance, and render them well-nigh imperishable.
There is no appearance in all Chaldaea, so far as it has been explored,
of any building which can be even probably assigned to a date anterior to
Urukh. The attempted tower was no doubt earlier; and it may have been a
building of the same type, but there is no reason to believe that any
remnant, or indeed any trace, of this primitive edifice, has continued to
exist to our day. The structures of the most archaic character
throughout Chaldaea are, one and all, the work of King Urukh, who was not
content to adorn his metropolitan city only with one of the new edifices,
but added a similar ornament to each of the great cities within his
empire.
The great builder was followed shortly by the great conqueror.
Kudur-Lagamer, the Elamitic prince, who, more than twenty centuries
before our era, having extended his dominion over Babylonia and the
adjoining regions, marched an army a distance of 1200 miles from the
shores of the Persian Gulf to the Dead Sea, and held Palestine and Syria
in subjection for twelve years, thus effecting conquests which were not
again made from the same quarter till the time of Nebuchadnezzar,
fifteen or sixteen hundred years afterward, has a good claim to be
regarded as one of the most remarkable personages in the world’s
history-being, as he is, the forerunner and proto-type of all those
great Oriental conquerors who from time to time have built up vast
empires in Asia out of heterogeneous materials, which have in a longer
or a shorter space successively crumbled to decay. At a time when the
kings of Egypt had never ventured beyond their borders, unless it were
for a foray in Ethiopia, and when in Asia no monarch had held dominion
over more than a few petty tribes, and a few hundred miles of territory,
he conceived the magnificent notion of binding into one the manifold
nations inhabiting the vast tract which lies between the Zagros
mountain-range and the Mediterranean. Lord by inheritance (as we may
presume) of Eliun and Chaldaea or Babylonia, he was not content with
these ample tracts, but, coveting more, proceeded boldly on a career of
conquest up the Euphrates valley, and through Syria, into Palestine.
Successful here, he governed for twelve years dominions extending near a
thousand miles from east to west, and from north to south probably not
much short of five hundred. It was true that he was not able to hold
this large extent of territory; but the attempt and the success
temporarily attending it are memorable circumstances, and were probably
long held in remembrance through Western Asia, where they served as a
stimulus and incentive to the ambition of later monarchs.
These, then, are the great men of the Chaldaean empire. Its extent, as
we have seen, varied greatly at different periods. Under the kings of
the first dynasty--to which Urukh and Ilgi belonged--it was probably
confined to the alluvium, which seems then to have been not more than 300
miles in length along the course of the rivers, and which is about 70 or
80 miles in breadth from the Tigris to the Arabian desert. In the course
of the second dynasty it received a vast increase, being carried in one
direction to the Elamitic mountains, and in another to the Mediterranean,
by the conquest of Kudur-Nakhunta and Chedor-laomer. On the defeat of
the latter prince it again contracted, though to what extent we have no
means of determining. It is probable that Elam or Susiana, and not
unlikely that the Euphrates valley, for a considerable distance above
Hit, formed parts of the Chaldaean Empire after the loss of Syria and
Palestine. Assyria occupied a similar position, at any rate from the
time of Ismi-dagon, whose son built a temple at Kileh-Sherghat or Asshur.
There is reason to think that the subjection of Assyria continued to the
very end of the dynasty, and that this region, whose capital was at
Kileh-Sherghat, was administered by viceroys deriving their authority
from Chaldaean monarchs. These monarchs, as has been observed, gradually
removed their capital more and more northwards; by which it would appear
as if their empire tended to progress in that direction.
The different dynasties which ruled in Chaldaea prior to the
establishment of Assyrian influence, whether Chaldaean, Susianian, or
Arabian, seem to have been of kindred race; and, whether they established
themselves by conquest, or in a more peaceful manner, to have made
little, if any, change in the language, religion, or customs of the
Empire. The so-called Arab kings, if they are really (as we have
supposed), Khammurabi and his successors, show themselves by their names
and their inscriptions to be as thoroughly proto-Chaldaaan as Urukh or
Ilgi. But with the commencement of the Assyrian period the case is
altered. From the time of Tiglathi-Nin (about B.C. 1300), the Assyrian
conqueror who effected the subjugation of Babylon, a strong Semitizing
influence made itself felt in the lower country--the monarchs cease to
have Turanian or Cushite and bear instead thoroughly Assyrian names;
inscriptions, when they occur, are in the Assyrian language and
character. The entire people seems by degrees to have been Assyrianized,
or at any rate Semitized-assimilated, that is, to the stock of nations to
which the Jews, the northern Arabs, the Aramaeans or Syrians, the
Phoenicians, and the Assyrians belong. Their language fell into disuse,
and grew to be a learned tongue studied by the priests and the literati;
their Cushite character was lost, and they became, as a people, scarcely
distinguishable from the Assyrians. After six centuries and a half of
submission and insignificance, the Chaldaeans, however, began to revive
and recover themselves--they renewed the struggle for national
independence, and in the year B.C. 625 succeeded in establishing a second
kingdom, which will be treated of in a later volume as the fourth or
Babylonian Monarchy. Even when this monarchy met its death at the hands
of Cyrus the Great, the nationality of the Chaldaeans was not swept away.
We find them recognized under the Persians, and even under the Parthians,
as a distinct people. When at last they cease to have a separate
national existence, their name remains; and it is in memory of the
successful cultivation of their favorite science by the people of Nimrod
from his time to that of Alexander, that the professors of astronomical
and astrological learning under the Roman Emperors receive, from the
poets and historians of the time, the appellation of “Chaldaeans.”
LIST OF AUTHORS AND EDITIONS QUOTED IN THE NOTES.
ABULPHARAGIUS, Chronicon Syriacum, ed. J. Bruno, Lipsim, 1789.
Agathangelus, Historia Regni Tiridatis, in C. Muller’s Fragm. Hist.
Gr. vol. v.,Parisiis, 1870.
Agathias, in the Corpus Script. Hist. Byz. of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnm, 1828.
Ammianus Marcellinus, ed. Gronovius, Lugd. Bat., 1693.
Analecta Grmca, ed. Benedict., Lutetite Parisioruin, 1688.
Annales de l’Institut Archeologique, Paris, 1828, &c.
Anonymus (continuator of Dio Cassius),in the Fragm. Hist. Gr.,
vol. iv., Parisiis, 1851.
Antonini Itinerarium, ed. Parthey et Pinder, Berolini, 1848.
Appianus, Historia Romana, ed. H. Stephanus, Parisiis. 1592.
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, ed.Tauchnitz, Lipsim, 1831.
Arrianus, Exped. Alex., ed. Tauchnitz, Lipsim, 1829. Fragments of,
in the Fragm. Hist.Greec. of C. MUller, vol. iii., Parisiis, 1849.
Historia Indica. in C. Muller’s Geographi Minores, Parisiis, 1855-1861.
Asseman, Bibliotheca Orientalis, Romae, 1719-1728.
Athanasius, Opera, ed. Benedict., Parisiis, 1698.
Athenaeus, Deipnosophistw,ed. Schweighmuser, Argentorat., 1801-1807.
Atkinson, Firdausi, in the Publications of the Oriental Translation
Committee, London, 1832.
Augnstinus, Opera, ed. Benedict., Antwerpim, 1700.
Aurelius Victor, Hist. Rom. Breviarium, ed. Pitiscus, Traject.
ad. Rhen., 1696.
BASILIUS STUs., Opera, ed. Benedict., Peruses, 17,21-17.10.
Behistun inscription, ed. H. C. Rawlinson. in the
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vols. X.. xi., &c.
Berosus, in the Fragments Histor. Grmorum of C. Miiller,
vol. ii., Paris, 1847.
Bohlen, Das alte Indien, Konigsberg, 1830.
Botta, Monument de Ninive, Paris, 1850, Bunsen, Chevalier,
Philosophy (if Universal History. London, 1854.
Burton, Dr., Ecclesiastical History of the First Three Centuries,
Oxford,1831.
CAPITOLINUS. JULIUS, in the Historiai, Augustm Scriptores of Jordan
and Eyssenhardt, Berolini, 1864.
Cedrenus, in the Corpus Script. Hist. Byzant. of B, G. Niebuhr, Bonnm, 1838.
Champagny, Les Caesars du Troisieme Siecle, Paris, 1865.
Chardin, Voyage en Perse. Amsterdam, 1735.
Chronicon Paschale, in the Corpus Script. Hist. Byzant. of
B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae, 1832.
Cicero, Opera, ed. Ernesti, Londini, 1819.
Claudianus. Opera, in the Corpus Poetarum Latinorum of G. S. Walker,
Loudini, 1865.
Clinton, Fasti Romani, Oxford,1845-1850.
Cosnias Iudicopleustes, Topographia
Christiana, in Montfaucon’s Collectio nova Patrons, q. v.
Creuzer, Symbolik and Mythologie, Leipzig, 1819-1821.
Curtius, Quietus. Vita Alexandri Magni, ed. Pitiscus. Hague, 1708.
Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Opera, ed. Aubert, Parisiis, 1638.
Cyrillus Monachus, Vita Euthymii, in the Analecta Grmca, q. v.
D’ANVILLE, Geographie Ancienne, Paris, 1768.
De Sacy, Memoire surdiverses Antiquities de la Perse, Paris, 1793.
D’Herbelot, Bibliothoque Orientale, Paris, 1781.
Dino, in the Fragm. Hist. Grace. of C. Muller, vol. ii., Paris 1845.
Dio Cassius, ed. Fabricius, Hamburgi, 1750-1752.
Dio Chrysostomus, ed. Morell, Parisiis, 1604.
Diodorus Siculus, ed. Dindorf, Parisiis, 1843-4.
Diogenes Laertius, ed. Wetstein, Amstelodami, 1692.
ECKHEL, Doctrina, Nummorum Veterum, Vindobonae, 1792.
Elisaeus translated into French by M. l’Abbe Kabaragy Garabed,
Paris, 1844.
Epiphanies, Opera, ed. Valesius, Coloniae, 1682.
Ethnological Journal, London, 1869, &c.
Eunapius, Vitae Philosophorum, ex officin. P. Stephani, Parisius, 1616.
Eusebius Pamphili, Vita Constantini Magni, Ac., ed. Heinichen, Lugd.
Bat., 1562.
Eutropius. Brevarinm Hist. Rom., ed Verheyk. Ladg. Bat., 1762.
Eutychius, Annales, Oxonii, 1654-1656.
Evagrius, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Reading, Cantabrigiae, 1720.
FABRICIUS. Bibliotheca Graeca, ed. Harles, Hamburgi. 1590-1809.
Fanstus of Byzantium, in the Fragm. Hist. Grace. of C. Muller,
vol. v., Paris, 1850.
Fergusson, James, History of Architecture, London, 1873.
Festus (Sext. Rufus). Breviarium rerum gestarum populi Romani,
ed. Verheyk. (See Eutropius.).
Firdausi, edited by Atkinson, in the series published by the Oriental
Translation Fund, 1839-71.
Flandin. Voyage en Peise, Paris, 1851,
Fraser, Journey into Khorasan, London, 1825.
GEOGRAPHIA ARMENICA, in Whiston’s edition of Moses of Chorene, q v.
Georgius Pisida, ed. Bekker. in the Corp. Hist. Byzant. of
B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae,1836.
Gesenius, De Inscriptione Phoenico-Greeca in Cyrenaica nuper reperta,
Halle, 1825.
Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. Dr. W. Smith, London,
1854-1855.
Gregorius Nazianzenus. Opera, ed. Morell, Lutetiae Parisiorum., 1609.
Grote, History of Greece, London, 1862.
HAUG, DR. MARTIN, Essays on the Sacred Writings of the Parsees, Bombay,
1862.
--Die Gathas, Leipzig, 1858-1860.
--Old Pahlavi-Pazand Glossary, Bombay and London. 1870.
Haxthausen. Baron, Transcaucasia, London, 1854.
Herodianus. Historiarum libri octo, Oxoniae, 1699.
Herodotus, ed, Bahr, Lipsiae, 1856-1831.
--English Translation of. by the Author, 2nd ed., London, 1862.
Hieronymus, Opera, ed. Benedict., Parisiis. 1093-1706.
Historim Angastm Scriptores, ed. Jordan et Eyssenhardt, Berolini. 1864.
Historiae. Byzantinae Scriptores, ed. B.G. Niebuhr. Bonnae, l828. &c.
Horatius, Opera, ed. Doring, Oxonii, 1838.
Hyde. De Religione Veterum Persarum, Oxonii, 1760 (2nd edition).
IBN KHALLIKAN. Biographical Dictionary, in the series published by the
Oriental Translation Fund, Paris, 1868.
Inscriptions of Sassanian kings. (See De Sacy.)
Irving, Washington. Successors of Mahomet, in the collected edition
of his Works, London, 1854.
Isidorus Characenus, in the Geographi Minores of C. Muller, Parisiis,
1855-1861.
JOHANNES ANTIOCHENUS, in the Fragm. Hist. Grmc. of C. Miiller, vol. iv.,
Parisiis, 1851.
--Epiphaniensis, in the same.
--Lydus. in the Hist. Byzant. Scriptores of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae,
1831.
--Malalas, in the same, Bonnae, 1835.
Johannsen, Historiae Yemanae, Bonnae, 1838.
Jornandes, De Gothorum Rebus gestis, ed. Closs, Stuttgartiae, 1866.
Josephus, Opera, ed. Tauchnitz, Lipsiae, 1850.
Journal Asiatique, Paris, 1850, fic.
Journal of the Geographical Society, London, 1840, &c.
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1846, &c.
Julianus, Opera. Parisiis, 1630.
Justinus, ed. Gronovius, Lugd. Bat., 1560.
KER PORTER, Sir R., Travels, London, 1821-1832.
Kinneir, Persian Empire, London, 1813.
LACTANTIUS, De Morte Persecutorum, ed. Bauldri, Traject. ad Rhenum,
1692.
Lajard, Culte de Mithra. Paris, 1852.
Lampridius, AElius, in the Historiae Augustae Scriptores of Jordan
and Eyssenhardt. q. v.
Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, Second Series, London, 1863.
--Nineveh and Babylon, London. 1853.
Lazare de Parbe, translated into French by M. l’Abbe Kabaragy Garabed,
Paris, 1843.
Libanius, Opera, ed. Morellus, Lutetiae, 1627.
Loftus, Chaldaea and Susiana. London, 1857.
Longperier, Modailles des Sassanides, Paris, 1840.
MACOUDI. Prairies d’Or, Paris, 1861-1871 (Persian and French).
Malcolm. Sir J., History of Persia, London, 1815.
Marcellinus, Ammianus. (See Ammianus.)
Marcellinus, Conies, Chronicou. ed. Sirmondi, Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1619.
Mathim, Handbook of Creek and Roman Literature, Oxford, 1841.
Menander Protector, in the Fragm. Hist. Graec. of C. Muller, vol. iv.,
Paris, 1851.
Milman, Dean, History of Christianity, London, 1863
--History of the Jews. London, 1829.
Mionnet, Description des Medailles Antique, Paris, 1806-1837.
Mirkhond, Histoire des Sassanides, in De Sacy’s Memoire, q. v.
Mold, Translation of the Modjmel-al-Tewarikh in the Journal Asiatique
for 1811
Moutfancon, Collectio nova Patrum, Paris 1706
Moore, Thomas. Lalla Rookh, in his Works, London, 1854.
Mordtmann, in the Zeitschrift der deutsehen Morgenlandischen
Gesellschaft, Leipzig, 1847. &c.
Moses Chorenensis, Hist. Armen., ed. Whiston, Londini, 1736
(Armenian and Latin).
Muller, C., Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Parisiis, 1811-1850
--Geographi Minores, Parisiis, 1855-1801.
Muller, Max, in Bunsen’s Philosophy of History, London. 1854.
--Languages of the Seat of War, 2nd edition, London, 1853.
NEMESIANUS, Cynegetica, ed. Stern, Halis Saxonom. 1832.
Nicephorus Callistus. Eccles. Hist. libri xviii., Lutetia Parisiornni,
1630.
Nicephorus Constantinopolitantis, Breviarium rerun post JMauricium
gestarum, ell. Bekker, in the, Corpus Hist. Byzant. of B. G.
Niebuhr, Bonnae. 1837.
Nicolaus Demascenus, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. of C. Mu11er, vol. iii.,
Paris, 1849.
Niebuhr, B. G., Lectures on Ancient History (Eng1. Tr.), London, 1849.
--C., Voyage en Arabie, Amsterdam, 1780.
Numismatic Chronicle, First Series, London, 1839, &c.
Numismatic Chronicle, Second Series, London, 1861, &c.
OCKLEY, History of the Saracens, in Bohn’s Standard Library. London,
1847.
Olympiodorus, in the Bibliotheca of Photius. q. v.
Orosius, Paulus, Historiae Coloniae, 1536.
Ouseley, Sir W. G., Travels, London, 1814-1823.
Ovidius, Opera, ed. Bipont., Argentorati, 1807.
PACATUS, Panegyricus, ed. Balduin, Parisiis, 1652.
Pagius. Critica historico-chronologica in Annales Ecclesiasticos Baronii,
Antverpiae, 1727.
Patkanian, Essai sur l’histoire des Sassanides, in the Journal Asiatique
for 1866.
Patrocles, Fragments in the Fragm. Hist. Grac. of C. Muller, vol. it.,
Parisiis, 1848.
Petrus Patricius, in the Fragm. Mist. Grac, of C. Muller, vol. iv.,
Parisiis. 1851.
Philostorgius Historia Ecclesiastica, in the collection of Reading,
Cantabrigiae, 1720.
Photius, Bibliotheca, ed. Hiisehel, Rouen, 1653.
Plato, Opera, ed. Stallbaum, Lipsia, 1821-1825.
Plnius. Historia Naturalis, ed. Sillig, Hamburgi et Gothae, 1851-1857.
Plutarchus, Vitae Parallel., ed. Tauchnitz. Lipsiae, 1845.
Polybius, Opera. ed. Schweighauser, Oxonii, 1822 1823.
Pottinger, Travels in Beloochistan, London, 1810.
Price, Major, Principal Events of Mohammedan History. London, 1816.
Prichard, Dr., Natural History of Man, London, 1813.
Priscus Panites, in the Fragmenta Hist. Graecorurn of C. Muller,
vol. iv., Parisiis. 1851.
Procopius, Opera, in the Hist. Byzant. Scriptores of B. G. Niebuhr,
Bonnae, 1833-38.
Ptolemaeus, Geographia, ed. Bertius, Amstelodami, 1618.
Pusey. Dr., Lectures on Daniel the Prophet, Oxford, 1869 (3rd edition).
RAWLINSON, G., Five Ancient Oriental Monarchies. 2nd ed., London, 1871,
--Sixth Oriental Monarchy, London, 1873.
--Translation of Herodotus, with Notes, 2nd ed., London. 1862.
--H C., Inscriptions of Persia, in the Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society, London, 1840-1849.
Rich, Kurdistan. London, 1836.
Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, Oxonii, 1814-1818.
Rutinus, Historia Ecclesiastica, Romae, 1741.
Rufus, Sextus, Breviarium Hist. Romanae, ed Verheyk, Lugd. Bat., 1762.
(See Festus.)
ST. MARTIN, VIVIEN DE, Les Huns Blancs, ou Ephthalites, Paris, 1849.
St. Martin, J., Memoires sur l’Armenie, Paris, 1818-9.
--Notes to Lebeau’s Bas Empire, Paris, 1827.
Scholia, in Nicandri Theriaca, Parisiis, 1557.
Sepeos, Histoire d’Heraclius. translation by Patkanian, St. Petersburg,
1863.
Sidonius Apollinaris, ed. Sirntondi, Parisiis, 1652.
Smith, Dr. W., Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, London, 1830.
--Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. London. 1854.
Socrates, in the Historia Eccles. Scriptures of Reading, Cantabrigiae,
1720.
Sophocles. ed. Wunder, Gothae et Erfordiae, 1833-40.
Sozomen, in the Historix Eccles. Scriptores, Colonix Allobrog., 16512.
Spiegel, Grammatik der Huzvaresch Sprache, Wien. 1856.
Zendavesta, Berlin, 1851-1858.
Strabo, Geographia, ed. Kramer, Berolini, 1844-1852.
Suidas, Lexicon, ed. Gaisford, Oxonii,1834.
Syncellus, Chronographia, in the Hist. Byzant. Script. of B. G. Niebuhr,
Bonnw, 1829:
Synesius, Opera, ed. Petavius, Lutetiee, 1612.
TABARI, Chronique (translation of Hermann Zotenberg), Paris, 1867-1871.
Annales Regum atque Legatorum Dei (translation of
J. G. L. Kosegarten), Gryphiswaldix, 1831.
Tacitus, Opera, ed. Walther, Halis Saxonum, 1831.
Texier, Description de l’Armenie, de la Perse, et de la Mesopotamie,
Paris, 1852.
Themistius, Orationes, ed. Petavius, Parisiis, 1684.
Theodoretus, Opera, in the Historia Eccles. Scriptores of Reading,
Cantabrigis, 1720.
Theophanes Byzantinus, in the Hist. Gra’c. Fragmenta of C. Muller,
vol. iv., Parisiis, 1851.
Theophanes. Chronographia. in the Hist. Byzant. Scriptores of
B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae, 1839.
Theophylactus Simocatt. in the Hist. Byzant. Scriptores of
B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae, 1834.
Thirlwall, Bp., History of Greece, in Lardner’s Cabinet Cyclopadia,
London, 1835, &c.
Thomas, Sassanian Inscriptions. in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, vol. iii., New Series, London, 1861, &c.
Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs Romains, Paris, 1697.
Tristram, Canon, Land of Moab, London, 1874.
Tzetzes. Chiliades sive Historia varia, ed. Kiessling, Lipsi’e, 1826.
VALERIUS MAXIMUS, ed. Redmayne, Loudini, 1673.
Vaux, Persia from the Earliest Period to the Arab Conquest, London, 1875.
Virgilius, Opera, ed. Forbiger, Lipsim, 1836-9.
Vopiscus, in the list. August. Scriptures of Jordan and Eyssenhardt,
Berolini, 1864.
WEIL, Geschichte der Chalifen, Mannheim. 1846, &c.
Westergaard, Zendavesta, Copenhagen, 1852-1854.
Wilson, H. H., Ariana Antiqua, London, 1841.
Windischmann, Zoroastrische Studien, Munchen, 1862.
--Ueber die Persische Anahita odes Anaitis, Munchen, 1846.
XENOPHON, Opera, ed. Schneider et Dindorf, Oxonii, 1826.
ZEITSCHRIFT der deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, Leipzig. 1847, &c.
Zeuss, Die Deutschen and die Nachharstamme, Miinchen, 1837.
Zonaras, in the Corpus Hist. Byz. Scriptores of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae,
1841, 1874.
Zosimus, in the same, Bonnm, 1837.